 So I'm called to work so recording in progress. We're live on silence. All right. Yeah. I will start the airport commission meeting. Today is a reorganization meeting. And it's the reason I am starting it in a blogger director of aviation. I will call this meeting to order at 405 p.m. As per the rules of the airport commission, I'm just going to acknowledge any remote commissioners and they don't see anybody on any commissioners online. With that, I will accept the motion to amend or adopt the agenda. So moved. Second. Seconded. All in favor. And we have an agenda and the second item on our agenda. Well, 2.2. I guess is the election of a chairperson for the airport commission. Are there any nominations for chair? I would like to nominate him to continue. I think he's a wonderful job. He manages the meetings well. And he manages us as well as he can be managed to quickly. So I think he deserves it. Another year. I second. Any discussion or other nominations? All in favor. All right. And Mr. Chairman, the meeting is yours. Thank you. Thank you. So next up is the. Next item is 2.3 election of the vice chair. Do we hear any nominations for vice chair? Nominated to drive for current vice chair. I'll second that. Unless you're going to someone else up. I didn't have time. Give me a few minutes. I'll move by Greg second by home and any other nominees for the position of vice chair. Hearing none, all those in favor of Jeff continuing as well as vice chair policing kind of a saying aye. Aye. Any opposed. Congratulations. We now move on to item three, which is a form. I do see we have a large number of attendees. So we're going to leave one person. So I will remind everyone of a couple of rules of public forum. We have a three minute limitation. Her speaker. This is not a form to engage in direct dialogue. With a commissioner over to a. Remember the airport staff. This is your opportunity to share your viewpoints. And you're going to share your information with the airport. If you have one. So. I guess we will start. They start with Jennifer Decker on top of the list. Thank you. Can you hear me? Sure. Okay. You said a name and place of residence. My place of residence is in Heinsberg now. And could you please tell me what the third thing was. Any affiliation you have with the airport. My affiliation is that I no longer travel in or out of the airport due to my concerns about climate change since 2015. So it's been over eight years now. And I'm extremely proud of that fact. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for taking today to tell you that the air traffic and the pollution. That is a problem at our airport is really problematic. And that includes the. Information about. Lead. And the, I'm wondering how much lead is in the 22 gallons of jet fuel that the F 35s burn every minute. I believe that we need to ground the F 35. On the ground. So you were slide. You were talking about children. Children development, as you know, so children who live near the airport are not only concerned with P Foss, affecting them. But also noise pollution and land. I encourage you all to support the Vermont, international guard resolution. We need zero emissions by 2030. about the damage caused by the F-35. The conversation last month around growth was alarming and jarring. Our planet is burning. We just had the hottest day on earth on July 3rd, just two days ago. I coined a new phrase, massphyxiation. That stands for mass asphyxiation. I'm having trouble breathing myself and I don't know about others here. The heat records will be broken repeatedly this year and we're entering uncharted territory. So expansion at the airport is not an option and it's not a legacy that supports human life or life on earth. V-Tang has not been a good neighbor because of PFAS, lead, and noise pollution and some of us on this call are supporting children and dealing with the life-threatening impacts of the pollution caused by BTV. I ask you to please support the resolution. Please tax private jets, please ban private jets, and please encourage the leadership of the airport and folks on the airport commission to think simply, stop talking about growth, but live simply so that the rest of us may simply live. Thank you, Jennifer. Next we have Ashley Adams. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi there. My name is Ashley Adams and I own a manufacturing business near the airport and as well as residential rental properties near the airport. The airport commission has the stated responsibility to advise on matters related to the operation of the airport and what really strikes me is that in an era when we're living with a climate emergency and facing ecological collapse and given the outsized environmental impact of airports, especially militarized airports, this responsibility is more urgent than ever. Given that the Burlington City Council declared a climate emergency in 2019, given that 1% of people create 50% of pollution from airplanes and given that this airport is host to the climate killing F-35, which is simultaneously harming residents surrounding the airport through crushing noise, and I can personally attest to that on a daily basis, air pollution and PFAS pollution, I'm wondering why this commission isn't actively engaged in these issues. Why isn't this body questioning the hypocrisy of a mayor, a city council, and an airport director who have all publicly professed their concern for the climate emergency while actively promoting growth at the airport and while ignoring the many harms caused by the F-35. If you are not helping to forge a path to drawing down emissions by decreasing flights, and if you aren't actively seeking ways to protect the community and the environment, then you are perpetuating this harm. I urge you to please support the Vermont air guard resolution that will go before the city council in Burlington, July 24th calling for zero emissions by 2030. And additionally, I'm asking you to acknowledge that a business model for the airport that seeks perpetual growth is immoral in the face of our climate and ecological emergencies. Help this airport forge a path of responsible growth. Thank you. Thank you, Ashley. So next we have Kurt McCormack. Kurt's up to you. Oh, Kurt, you're in mute. Thank you. Am I muted now? You're good now. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to testify to you today. My name is Kurt McCormack. I live in Neill, North Ann in Burlington, and I'm a recent representative to the legislature from Neill, North Ann, and from downtown. This is a very strange position that I think you are asked to be in by some of us and myself included, but I'm going to ask it anyway, because every day that passes, every day on the radio and the papers we read about, we hear about another climate catastrophe, and yet we go on and life goes on as if our contribution to that pollution is not connected to the pollution at all, not connected to the climate changing. And we all know it's not true, but we just act as if it was true, and this airport commission goes on as if it was not true, and of course it is true. And I would just ask you to try to imagine what a great thing it would be for an organization like this commission to come forward and say, we're going to put a halt on our expansion plans until this climate problem is solved with aviation. We're going to ask, we're going to get behind this idea that the National Guard should do an inventory of their climate pollution. We're going to ban private jets. Many of these things, especially perhaps the last one, is mainly symbolic, and it's an extremely important symbol. It's outrageous that some people, and it's very few that can afford it, of course, they're so expensive, but for some people, flying around in private jets is acceptable to us. And in the Legislature, Arizona Transportation Committee, we were always so happy that all those tax dollars that came in, not tax dollars, but the fees, or they were tax dollars, for the jet fuel for the private planes. That was the argument for expanding the smaller airports around the state, those tax dollars. So that's all I have to say, and I would just ask you to please just consider what a great thing it would be, what great leadership it would be for this organization to say yes to an inventory of the National Guard's pollution, no to expansion of the airport, and no to private jets. Thank you. All right, thank you, Her. So next up, we have Carl Martin. Right there, Carl. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for allowing me to testify. So my name is Carl Martin, I'm actually calling in from Montpelier, our state capital, and I'm speaking today, not just because I have in the past used the airport, but because the airport activities affect all of us. I feel obligated to speak in opposition to both the expansion of BIA traffic as well as to what I consider time-wasting efforts to greenwash such expansion when the brunt of the pollution is traceable to airplanes themselves, not to infrastructure and so forth. I am also concerned that such arguments about greening air traffic are motivated by idealistic notions around beta technologies, claims that are fatally contradicted by a 2021 IEA report explaining that, quote, emissions are hard to abate because aviation requires fuel with a high energy density, end quote. And they also point out that even electric battery power will still be largely relying on fossil fuel-based grids. But to come back to the larger point, in addition to spewing carbon, airplane fuel, poisons communities with lead and other things, and so the benefits of degrowth for BIA are wide and life-focused. More commercial growth only serves capitalist accumulation, not planetary well-being. I also support efforts to tax and then cut private jet use at BIA. A measure comparable to how France recently enacted a ban on domestic short-haul flights between major cities where public transit exists. Finally, I support the VAMG resolution calling for zero emissions by 2030. That, as has been pointed out, will go before the city council. I understand that systems are so slow to change. There's a lot of inertia, but the commission members and people who can intervene here are not bound to affirm a deadly status quo. And I also appreciate previous comments on the moral implications of the decisions by the commission. Those are my comments. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Carl. You're welcome. So now we'll open up the mic to Duncan Nichols. Hello there. Can you hear me? We sure can. Hi there. Thanks for having a hearing or a public comment. I'm in Thetford, Vermont, and I'm 67 years old, and I'm a social worker and licensed in the state. And that's not that relevant to this, but I'll make a comment about that. And so I'm from Thetford, Vermont, so it's about an hour and a half away. So I'm not very good at speaking off the cuff, but I didn't write things down. I wrote a few little notes to myself, but I'm thinking about growth. And I'm 67, and when I was a kid, my mom was a city politician in New York City, and there was a city planner named Robert Moses. And Robert Moses built a lot of infrastructure. And there was a lot of corrupt money in that. Now, I'm not saying there's corrupt money in Burlington. That's not the point. The point is that by being against a planner that wasted taxpayer money, that became the norm, the moral norm, the high ground. So I think my only comment is that growth is a bad thing now. It might have been a more acceptable thing then, you know, 40, 50 years ago in America, but it's a bad thing now. So I would say it would be really good if you all could conceive of your jobs there as making a better world and doing the best job you can in that way. To expand the airport is the wrong thing to do now. I also think that you can think of yourselves as mavericks, as many people are in this situation. They have to think forward. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. All righty. Thank you. You're welcome. Next we have Dan Castragon. Hi, commission. Thanks for hearing us today. My name is Dan Castragon. I live in Burlington. Commissioner Scheppler, I just wanted to say thank you for at least bringing up the idea of taxing private jets and think that the .1% should not get a free ride. It should not be able to fry the planet for fun. As was stated before, the hottest ever day recorded in the history of human beings was on Monday, and this airport is a giant fossil fuel facility. According to your own report in May, it pumps more than 118,000 tons of pollution into the atmosphere every year. And that report counted 2019 F-35 data when they were only here for a little bit at the end of the year. And it did not include the final 3,000 feet of the flight's journey. And that pollution is not captured as receiving pollution by another airport. And also did not count the short-term non-CO2 heating impacts of aviation like the creation of contrails. So not counting all of that, there are still 118,000 tons of pollution pumped into the atmosphere every year. And the pollution is not included in the Burlington net zero energy roadmap. And there is no plan except for endless expansion. And we can't do that. We need better data and a true accounting of emissions by category, private, cargo, commercial and military, not operations, but actual tons of pollution. And Director Longo at the March 2 meeting, you said, quote, the true hope here is to finish the entire sustainability plan this year, probably by this summer. And I'm wondering where it is. Both Jean Bergman and Karen Paul asked for it. And President Paul said, quote, collecting the emissions by group. In the interest of transparency, we need that out in the public realm. And everything else that was discussed at the last meeting is greenwashing. The embodied carbon in the new building, which is expanding the airport, is irony. Please let the irony wash over all of us because it's expanding the airport. In this report, 99% of pollution came from airplanes. The scope one and two emissions are so small and mathematically insignificant. Regarding sustainable aviation fuels, which is a term coined by the aviation fossil fuel industries. These are biofuels. These are plants that are burned in engines of airplanes. They are a false solution. They currently account for 0.01% of all aviation fuel in the world. And the aviation fossil fuel industries have promised over and over again that they will hit targets and they have not. Donnie Gorris-Cole said at the March 2023 meeting, when President Paul asked about biofuels, quote, it's mostly a supply issue and it hasn't been scaled. And then Tim Shea at the last meeting of heritage aviation, which services private jets and helps rich people fly the planet, said when the first biofuels get to BTV, it will be reserved for rich people who will quote gladly pay for it and wondering how that is justice. So how many gallons of biofuels is BTV ever dispensed? Zero. So I don't know what would be what would go on the website as far as greenwashing. We don't have any biofuels yet, but when they come from the one facility on the west coast, we're going to put them in private jets for rich people. And Director Longo, other things you could do is things like not fly to Milwaukee to court airlines for more air traffic, more pollution. You could reinstate landing fees for the first two years for new airlines to not financially incentivize more pollution. And when you said it would take significant legal research to ban aircraft at the airport, I encourage you to do it in this commission to do it, to lean in and to be brave and to take action and to stop using words. We need degrowth at the airport and this commission and this airport is not doing it. Thank you, Dan. Great. So let me turn it up to Sabine von Meering. Hi, my name is Sabine von Meering. I live in Wayland, Massachusetts, and I have no affiliation with the airport. But thank you very much for allowing me to speak at the hearing. I'm a university professor and a climate activist with 350 mass, and I'm organizing resistance to private jet expansion in Massachusetts. And I know the resistance to endless airport expansion is vibrant and growing here in the United States and abroad, because we're, as you've heard, we are experiencing temperature records and extreme weather events. And we know scientists are telling us we must do a 180 on carbon emissions and everything else will lead to complete climate chaos. I mean, by now we're able to smell climate change, right? Just weeks ago we had smoke-filled air from the Canadian wildfires pushed down to us, reminding us that we're on one planet breathing the same air. So we also know that pollution from air traffic is the biggest chunk of any individual's carbon footprint. So we must reduce air traffic and one way of doing so is to end the expansion of airports. And of course, nothing spells climate injustice like private jets, since they are the biggest polluters and the smallest number of people. And private jets are really the worst in a time of climate emergency. One, two and a half hour trip on a private jet spews as much climate pollution into the air as your normal single family home emits in an entire year. So please stop airport expansion. An airport is an airport. Even if you put solar panels on its roof or drill for geothermal heating, it is still an airport, first and foremost. And that means that it is a problem for the climate primarily because of the emissions from air traffic and pollution and not what you emit from heating or cooling the building. And some people think we can fly clean planes, but there is no such thing as clean planes. Even so-called sustainable aviation fuels are not a solution since burning them produces just as much if not more CO2 equivalent. And so it's basically just a form of green washing. So your parents, your uncle's aunts, maybe even grandparents, you know we have responsibility to our children and grandchildren. I trust that you take your responsibility seriously and do everything in your power to block any further expansion of this airport. Thank you. Thank you, Sydney. All right. Next is Ali. Ali, if you could say your full name for proceeding. Hi. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Oh, great. Yeah, it's Ali Hamidani. I'm a Burlington Vermont resident in Ward 3. I have flown in and out of Burlington Vermont's airport. That's my only affiliation with it. I actually love to fly. I love traveling to visit different places, friends and family, and just being in an airplane and flying. I love it. Personally, I know some people have fears of nervousness of flying. I personally love everything about it, but like everyone else has said tonight or this afternoon, it doesn't match with our need to respond to the climate crisis. The climate crisis is a big enough problem that I feel like we sometimes collectively feel like someone else somewhere else at another time down the road should take steps toward addressing it. And I feel like airport expansion, let alone the way we have been as a society operating and flying for pleasure, myself included, it's not sustainable and it doesn't really make sense with what we need to do differently. And I hope that we can be an example of change for other places as well to take up our example of making the types of changes we need to to preserve what we can. And I know that that just won't happen if we decide that we don't do that. But thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Ali, for your comments. Next we have Colin Larson. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi, everyone. I'm Colin Larson. I live in Burlington. I don't have any affiliation with the airport. In the past couple weeks, as you know, we all had to kind of suffer from the wildfire smoke. I had multiple sleepless nights because my apartment doesn't have air conditioning and I had to close all the windows due to the particulate matter. And I know that it may seem kind of far off to think, well, what does this have to do with the Canadian wildfires? But as has been said before, every pound of carbon that we put in the atmosphere from this point forward matters when it comes to these kinds of natural disasters that we have to deal with in Vermont. And it's not just us, of course. It's everyone, everywhere in the world. I'm often very concerned about my future. I feel hopeless a lot of the time. And I want to see our city's leaders do something about it. This is the airport is a super polluting facility. And I think we need to accept a future where there are less flights or no flights. So I would encourage you all to ask yourselves what can we do? And there's been several solutions presented already to you. One of those is taxing, eliminating private jets, and then another is investigating the best way to ground the F-35s and military aircraft. And you can also reduce flights overall and not expand the airport any further. Thank you. Thank you, Colin. Next, we have Catherine Bach. Can you hear me now? We sure do. Thank you. So my name is Catherine Bach. I live in Burlington. My affiliation with the airport is that I've flown in and out of it a few times. I'm a retired naturopathic physician. When I started working in 1980, I could help people get healthy by just doing simple things with better diet, more exercise, a few herbs, a few other maybe massage or active puncture, that kind of thing. And as the years went on, the same therapies didn't work anymore. And so I ended up studying public health and realizing that the reason they didn't work is that people were living in such an environment that was so toxic that it was not really conducive to human health. And so that's why I'm here testifying. And air traffic is a difficult question. And personally, I've flown a lot because I lived in Sweden for 28 years and I had family all over the world. And it's not really conducive to happiness to never see your family either. So I know how hard it is to stop flying, but I do try to limit my flights to important visits. So to reduce the population from air traffic, flights must be limited. Increasing the size of Burlington Airport and the number of flights will increase the pollution, no matter how green the buildings are, and no matter how green we say the fuel is. Private jets, as we've heard, because the 1% to make more than 50% of the pollution emitted by air flight, and they shouldn't really be allowed at all, at least if they are limited to essential life-saving trips. So I just want to say that we must learn to fly less and stop burning all fuels to ensure a livable planet. Thank you so much for having this hearing. All right, thank you, Catherine. Next we have Peter Wyman. Hi there, thank you. My name is Peter Wyman. I'm a resident of Burlington. And I just wanted to add my voice, encouraging the commission to consider ways to disincentivize private jet travel through Burlington. I think, I mean, as a society, we're facing a situation where simply put, we just, we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases. We have to stop polluting further, just as a square one kind of starting point. And it strikes me as just basically just very low-hanging fruit to be creative and do what we can to remove that is just sort of the unfair emissions from a very small and wealthy sliver of the population. Thank you very much. Thank you, Peter. Next we have Robin Lloyd. I'm unending. Thank you, Robin Lloyd. I live here in Burlington. And I, you know, I don't want to take up more of your time. I think the people who have spoken are incredibly eloquent. I think we just have to take de-growth seriously. And in so many aspects of our lives, and you on the airport commission, you have a very important ability to make significant steps to lower the emissions here in this area. And I just urge you to listen to all the previous speakers myself and move ahead and limit private jets and make the runways smaller. Okay. Thank you. Alrighty. Thank you, Robin. Next we have Bob Acheson. Good afternoon. Good evening, everybody. This is Bob Acheson. I live in Plainfield, Vermont, use pronouns he, him. And I lived in Burlington once upon a time. I now live three quarters of a century on this planet. I have three children, five grandchildren, and it breaks my heart just to look at them and know what they're facing because of the glut and the lies of fossil fuel over this past century for the most part. But it's still not enough for these guys. You know, this is a fossil fuel death project that we're on. They keep pumping it out and pumping it out and teasing people with, oh, well, maybe we can pay $4 a gallon, but, you know, the prices are going to go down now to $349. Give me a frickin' break. And instead of them doing anything to help the problem that they've created, we continue to go on with this death march and nobody knows how to stop it. We know how to stop it, and it's going to take people in the streets to do so. But you guys in a position of authority, if you don't even listen to people that are telling you what the facts are, if you look at the skies and flights were canceled when the smoke was at the height of it, this is a death spiral. And you know what that is, being an airplane enthusiast. So just keep it up, you know. Let's have some more private jets. Let's let country rock stars fly around and, oh, my God, size planes. Let's give them greenwash fuels so that they think they're doing the right thing. But, you know, shut it down. Just shut it down. Find a new job. Find a way that'll contribute to the health of the planet instead of sucking us all under. I just can't believe that people can be in conscious administrative roles in this country, in this state, in these cities, and not get it. Period. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments, Bob. I see no other members from the public who have raised their hand. If you do wish to speak, please do raise your hand. In the meantime, I'll turn it over to members of the public who are here in person. So if you'd like to speak and introduce yourself. My name is James Lease, and I live in South Burlington, and I wrote copies to, so please take one as it were. On the back, you'll see the rules that were mentioned, but haven't been described. All cities in town have power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. But in order of the air, the city of Burlington has a unique power under federal law and under the FAA grant assurances the city can prohibit, and I'm quoting here, prohibit or limit any type, kind, or class of air and vertical units of the airport. If such action is necessary for the state operation of the airport, or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public, the city can use this power now to protect people and plan, so long as the conditions it sets are non-discriminatory and are to be met by all youth of the airport. As mentioned, the temperature is rising, burning fuel is responsible for extreme heat waves, heart spires, and air quality degradation, more frequent severe storms, flooding erosion, more drought and expanding deserts, lots of glaciers, rising sea levels, and lots of coastal land floods are speaking for a toxic altitude in our lake at increased risk of pandemic. Therefore, safe operation of the airport includes establishing airport operating standards under the rules that I just mentioned that reduce aviation fuel use. One of the best ways the city can protect climate and public safety, as well as in the United States, 2019 declaration of a climate emergency is to use this FAA authority to set a uniform aviation fuel efficiency standard that drastically reduces the growing in airports contribution to aviation people burning. Get rid of the gas of space. Most commercial passenger airlines get close to 100 passenger miles per gallon. Some even get 120. By contrast, most of the luxury private air ones that exclusively serve a tiny fraction of the 1% get between 10 and 45 passenger miles per gallon. Though the worst of the worst 35, which only gets 0.5 passenger miles per gallon, exercising its power to set it down is discriminatory. Fuel efficiency standard is the lowest of both hanging room consistent with the city's declaration of a climate emergency. At one stroke, enacting a fuel efficiency standard like 50 passenger miles per gallon would ban all the gas those in the air currently using TV. It's an example in close to nothing to implement passenger miles per gallon standing for the equivalent in tons of cargo miles per gallon. Thank you, Jim. I just have a couple more sentences. Yeah, even a couple more sentences. It's fine. It looks like there's no one. No, I'm not reading that. Okay. Thank you. They are able to establish an aviated fuel efficiency standard for its own airport demonstrates to afraid any difference to the climate emergency. The city itself declares its hypocrisy. Every member of city government must be held accountable. Under the leadership of the airport commission, Burlington can do that. The commission can recommend the ordinance for the city council implementing the city's power to set reasonable aircraft fuel efficiency standards, Burlington airport to do its part to save the planet and ability in view of the climate emergency. Now is the time please do it now. And on the back, you can see the rules in the airport's grant assurances, which some of which I read it, but but it really makes clear that this airport has been guaranteed to set standards and there shouldn't be any talk about any further talk that we don't have to talk about because we do. Thank you, James. Any other members of the public wishing to speak? Right? Hearing none, we will close down on the form which is free on the agenda. We will move now on to item four, which is the consent agenda. We hear a motion to conduct the contents of the consent agenda as presented. Let's move by Jeff here. Second? Seconded by Helen. Any discussion or questions or comments on the consent agenda? Nick, anything you wanted to call out specifically? As always, the passengers, we're seeing an uptick in vacationers, leisure travelers, and we're almost 13% over the last year in May. This is May 2023 or over 22% on the deep layman passengers visiting or coming back home to Burlington area, according to that 17% over last year's May numbers. We're going to see that consistently throughout the summer months. Our flight loads are very full. Our traffic, especially through these holiday weekends or midweek holidays, are extensive. We're seeing 2,000 to 2,500 passengers a day leave Burlington, Vermont, twice that number coming in and out of the airport, about 5,000 passengers per day leaving the airport. The airlines see those numbers, though they are up gauging the aircraft, meaning though the flights are less and less regional carriers and more mainline, larger, wide body, more seats on an individual aircraft, and those are coming into the airport. In fact, just moments ago, there were multiple mainline aircraft on the ground here in Burlington. You'll see the same consistent figures for the landed weights on that. We just went way down to about that small on the landed weights. So you'll see that increased. In fact, you'll see since 2014, we've had in May, the highest landed weight that we've seen in quite some time, just over 71 million pounds. We don't track every land weight. This is specific to air carrier operations. So we're busy. The terminal is busy. The traffic pattern is busy. The airport is quite busy on this report. Mr. Zany, follow up comments or thoughts? Yes, Mr. Egret. Vic, under implements, and I'm just trying to wrestle with some of the comments that the public just shared, do the implements, and I'm looking on page six here, so I can't read that chart because it's kind of small, it says general aviation, it says air carriers, air taxi, general aviation, and military on page six. Is general aviation with those include those things that people are mentioning, such as the smaller jets and things like that? That's correct. So air carrier and air taxi defined down there, really the difference between air carrier and air taxi is just the number of seats on those individual planes. All other aircraft except for air carrier and air taxi, commercial operations, and the military classification, all other aircraft operation is categorized as general aviation. And that category isn't broken down specifically in terms of the number of people that are on a particular plane, but anything that is not an air carrier or military or military. And most numbers just for April indicate that the general aviation was twice the number of commercial airlines. Is that right? That's correct. Okay, thank you. In fact, when we break down total number of operations, which we've exceeded 100,000 operations per year in operation being defined as a landing or a takeoff one each. There are some air carriers or air carrier and air taxi is the way we classify that. There's about five to 7% of military operations and the remaining portion is general aviation, which is consistent with those April. And I'm just looking for just one other quick follow up. I'm just looking across the board. It looks like that one April number is not an aberration. It looks like it's pretty consistent across the board from April of last year from FY 23 from FY 22. It's always about twice as much as the air carriers. Will you say that that's just you may or may not be able to answer this question. Would you say that that's common for other airports or is Burlington and it's more of a unique situation and we may have a larger number of general aviation? I think we have a larger number of general aviation. And I also think there are some similarities with other airports or sites where we're a class Charlie or we have specific airspace around us, a complex airspace systems, multiple varieties of use of aircraft military to commercial to general aviation, of course. So these numbers definitely contribute to that over 100,000 operations and one of the busiest airports in New England outside Boston Logan based on a number of operations standpoint. We also have unique factors. We have very large companies like beta technologies. We have multiple flight academies that provide part 141 pilot training to support the pilot shortage that is out there. So there are definitely unique factors associated with post operations numbers here. And the more you talk, the more it's sort of interested I am in this. So it includes beta includes of white schools, includes probably FedEx includes, you know, people coming to visit on a jet and just that may have just their family three to five people on it and they've made a white plan and they're going to land in Burlington and would include those people too. That number of operations does include those and we do not track the number of people because we do not know how many people are on those private flights. And hopefully one last question. Every plane that lands here is taxed. Is that right? Not taxed. It has to pay some sort of landing fee. We do have a landing fee structure for this airport for all aircraft some under 6,000 pounds. There is no landing fee and usually if you're based aircraft, there are other circumstances associated with that. Those landing fee structures are either at the terminal facility here for air carrier operations, which we charge and negotiate as part of our basic charges and airline lease agreement. We also have contractual obligations with heritage aviation who manages all other fees associated with landing and coming into their facility. Thank you. Any other sort of follow up to share additional data, Nick, based on that total number breaking down between beta because as a new person, I have no idea when I see that number. Is it all private planes? Is it data? Is it data? I don't know what's that data because I'm hearing private planes like I don't know if it's 400 million a day or two. And anecdotally, we don't have the specific data. These numbers right here come from the air traffic data system from the Federal Aviation Administration, which is why they're a month behind that or two months behind that reporting. But that doesn't break down tail numbers, registration numbers, those types of things. And we have no way, we're not out there and we're already tracking that. Thank you. No one sits there and counts? Well, air traffic controllers, these are the ones that count literally with a counter, but they don't count registration numbers or anything like that. There is potentially some radar track information that could help this information. Our noise monitors or the backend also has information associated with who is flying. There's no cumulative data available right now. Do you have any airports? How many passengers there are on private planes? I can't answer that one with any, but I know of no other airport that's in the airport. But my number of airports and the contacts that I would have are small fractions, so I don't, I can't get this answer. Unless they came from overseas and then they'd have to go through customs. Through customs, yeah. And then you can't make customs to account that. Yeah. All right. Any other comments or questions? If not, all those in favor of adopting, approving the consent agenda. Next is section five. Action items 5.1 is a request to discuss the runway rehabilitation. I'll entertain a motion to request to the board of finance and city council the approval of the contract. Stanta consulting services related to the rehabilitation runway 1533. Do I hear much of that effect? Let's move by Helen. Do we hear a second? Second second by Jack. Discussion? It's Larry. Okay. So, approximately 12 to 13 years ago was the last time the main runway was rehabilitated in the airport. They've been obviously the pavement condition is getting worse. We are moving forward with the design of a mailman overlay, which will all be done at night to not impact air travel during the day. We anticipate we'll be applying for that grant by May 1 of next year. The way grants are issued, they come a little bit late and starting project in 2024, that late in the year at night doesn't work pavement. It looks like we have 15 years after it was last done, this project will go forward. With the rehabilitation right now, it's looking at about five-inch mail in order to make up the by-toonist portion of the runway. The only thing I'll add, Larry, is you can start hearing more and more about this project. This is not as simple as Larry's describing it. He's the professional at this and does a really, really great job. This is going to be a very complicated, highly watched and very considered phasing project because it's shutting down the main runway. We're going to have hard closures. We've already briefed the airline so that we can start preparing. We're not going to be doing this next year because most likely we're going to be getting that grant late, like Larry just said, so we'll start the following year. I feel like I've gone through, maybe not 15 years ago, but in the last few years, we've had some work on a main runway that were these hard closures where people know that last-chip blue flight doesn't leave Kennedy by, X doesn't leave, right? Maybe there's no coming in at two in the morning. That's right. We've done a sort of patched area that we've shut down to go out here in Nelton and overlaying certain areas for the last couple of years. When it's a smaller project, we can be a little bit more flexible on the, we call it the soft closure. We see that jet blue is about to take off or they're 20 minutes away from departure and they can come in both on the local general manager level and wherever they're coming from, we'll keep the runway open. A project like this where we have five or six hours of the only time to shut down mill hour, once you start the mill, you got to get back in and it's more than just getting the asphalt. Every paint, every light, every, everything's got to be ready to go for the next morning. So it's going to be very, very, very particular on that work of this. Will you be able to do it in one, I guess, warm painting season? Yes. So that starts, like, as soon as it gets warm? That's right. And the asphalt plants open. And, you know, looking at the image behind you there, the whole runway is not asphalt, so we don't have to do the whole runway. It's the, the darker sector that Larry will point out in that. Everything else is concrete. Why is that? See, the largest white rectangles on either end of the runway, those are what's called the aiming points. So that's where the majority of the weight lands on these aircraft is in that concrete section. So it's higher strength, deeper construction. Whereas the asphalt doesn't need that strength. And thank goodness, it's much easier to actually repair, replace, rehabilitate. If it was concrete, it would be much more extensive for us to do this. Interesting, because it's deeper than you. You got it. Yep. Interesting. And never did that. So that's about a mile. Our runway is 8,400 feet, so a mile and a half, so about a mile of asphalt. And 150 feet wide, plus, I'm sure there's something. Well, they used to say, you know, in Montpelier, the interstate is $8 a mile. So what is this? Yeah. Well, usually our design is about 10% of the project cost. So this $800,000 design contract that you're looking at right here. We were looking at probably 10 to 15,000. And 15 because of the circumstances with all the light work. Right. Yeah. And the 15 support, very supported by the FAA. This is the classic number one priority over the FAA. It's a little funding. No, it's not up to me, but it's a program for the FAA. And we've been planning this for many, many, many years in our master plan. And then we, of course, work with the FAA continuously to make sure that this is funded. Great. Commissioner, is there any other discussion on this action? No. Just in terms of the funding, it mentions on page 17 that 90% is funded with this grant, is that correct? Yes. And then the remaining is state funding and airport PFC. Can you remind me what PFC is? Yeah. So, PFC is passive like a silly part. So, on every step, we work out our part. And those monies, they are expected monies, right? We can use them for, especially like approved projects. We put in applications and that's everything we use on certain items. This is one of those such eligible items. So, we typically use them to reimburse our own local share cost of a grant and the state funds 6% of a grant to half a million dollars in. And Marie, thanks. I missed the first part, but what is the PFC like stand for? So, I can remember. So, passenger, facility charge. Okay. So, we must charge per passenger? We do. Yeah. So, that means that people on smaller jets, we don't know the number of passengers. No. So, the passenger facility charge is another federally regulated program specific to air carrier operations. So, any airline that operates a specific operation, the airport sponsor can apply to charge the airline funds, apply meaning we have to show the FAA that we're collecting these funds from the airlines. We get approved for that collection on an airline. We also have to apply to spend those funds and we have to get approved from the FAA to do that as well. So, this is a highly regulated FAA program only for airlines. So, not for the military. It is not military or general. Correct. And the airlines also have to have consultation on spending these funds as well. So, this is a very specific program to airline passengers. I don't know of any part 139 airport, which is what we are. Any airport that does not have a passenger facility charge program, big airports have a smaller fee because that's the way the law is written. We charge $4.50, which is the maximum dollar amount that we're allowed. We retain $4.11 cents per passenger, which equates to about $2.73 million a year, which, like Maria was saying, goes to specific projects approved by the FAA. And most importantly, goes towards that 10% project cost. Just a couple of follow-up questions. Do you know of any airports that have the PFC, the passenger facility charge, or non-commercial airplanes? No, this program is strictly for commercial operations. It would seem, out of curiosity, it would seem as if the passenger jets then are using our runway but not really painful. They do pay for a landing fee. So, the passenger facility charges a cent in sort of the airlines. The airlines pay for that same landing fee. This is above and beyond that to support airports with local shares, if there are any additional programs like a terminal building, or other snow equipment is another really big one to support the operation of an airline, which is why it's consultation. Well, and I suspect that the airlines, the carriers, the planes are so much heavier that they're impact on the pilot or the pilot. But the runway is sort of the difference between my Subaru and some big tractor trailer. That's right. That's right. So, the more weight, more awareness. Private jets don't have contributed to somewhere unfair. That's right. The majority must be the big ones. That's correct. Especially the big ones that are full of fuel and full passengers. Seth, I think you say to be inverse as opposed to the money, you're expecting the money to be in the bank already? Yeah, the airlines are required to submit it monthly. So, they submit reports, they submit the information and we receive that information. Sorry, I should have asked her. So, this is not, you're not borrowing on the investigation. You have the 450, whatever it is, 450 or 450 matches already in the bank, but it's already in the bank. You got to re-imperse themselves. And you'll see the balance in the PFC bank account on the cash statement. That's one of the accounts of what's not in it. An enterprise fund. Right. Municipality. And I have it under the restricted funds because we just can't. The money can't be commingled. We don't commingle it. It has to be used for very appropriate purposes. And we get an audit, a separate audit every year just on the PFC program. But we do also borrow money, right, in anticipation on grants. Yeah. Yeah, grant participation. Make sure there's any other further discussion in this action. Hearing none, all those in favor, please reach out by saying aye. Aye. Those approved. Item six is the construction update. All right. I don't have really much to add from last month. This month has been, with exception to what I have on my construction update report. This month has been full of responding to FAA grant applications. So we could go finalizing that issue this fiscal year, which may anticipate that having most of the July. So I'm open to questions. And I have nothing really other to report to, but I've already written my report. Oh, he's had something to add. I mean, he does such a great job on the report, but the only things I'll mention are kind of the maybe more obvious ones, the physical changes that are happening with the terminal building as you drove into the airport. You saw, I think last commission meeting as well, but you saw the new jet bridge that was attached to the end of the building. Not operational yet. We're just waiting for one little wedge is what we're calling it. And that should be coming online very, very soon, which is really critical to our summer operations. Some country is starting on that particular bridge and United uses it pretty frequently as well. The North renovation project is continuing. We added some tile to various locations of the airport in preparation for a new automatic exit lane systems, which we're going to have one on each exit door. So we will not need to end TSA will not need to staff these doors 24 seven, they will, as the name implies, be automatic connected to Dave and the security system alarms. So we'll be able to track immediately if anybody breaches or goes backwards. And you'll see them at many, many, many airports. They're coming online. That's all I really wanted to mention. Most of the time I can pick up is gone around, you see a lot of new payment or you already have to be, we did a lot of maintenance related stuff with new payment. Our kids will be going down the night, right? Our kids out here. No rain tonight. I think that in front of the terminal that you drove in today, that it was all nice. That other is. Larry, I'm really sure how to ask this question because it's perfect for my answer first. So I'm sorry if I'm putting you on an uncomfortable situation. And so I'm not asking you to answer any personal questions. But I'm looking at number three here, the airport master plan update. The purpose of this master plan is to take a look at the airport in the next 10 years. I've only been on this commission for a year. And I'm already sort of feeling that the last couple of meetings have been kind of difficult, you know, with the public comments and such. And I'm wondering as the person who is sort of in charge of that, how about if you see a way to address some of those concerns that they have in terms of areas that could be put on hold for a while? Well, here's your first question, personally. I've been improving the environment and part of that for 40 years in the state of Vermont. Okay. Things for a time that could improve the part of my input. So I've been part of the department for a long time. As far as bringing things on hold, anything we put on hold would be a detriment because all the aspects of everything we're doing are improving. So that's okay. Thank you for trying. Larry, any question on item nine, which is the sand insulation project? This put on hold, we talked last month, the window supplier had gone belly up. And then I'm curious if there's been any progress over the last week? Whereas we're waiting for the new spec. We have received the updated by American, which has to be obviously all the branch prior certain percentage by American, right? So this could either could or could not meet it. There's a review in a public notice period that the FAA does on that. So we have submitted that manufacturer and those windows to the FAA. They have to post that. I think it has to be posted for 10 days to make sure everybody's aware. In case there's another company out there that knows you can do this, but it really isn't. So we are still looking at the August start week. I mean, that's a month and a half beyond what we initially thought. But right now, as of this afternoon, if I call to the company that's helping us manage this, it's to start that in August. We are waiting for the specs, however, for those windows. Great. I could just hear his progress over. So when you say we're going to start in August, start working on some of the housing. Yeah. Yeah. Because the FAA has simplified it, so we call it the Palatinate Day 1, then which was the Day 1, we're calling it Day 2. And that was those, I think, 16 homes that we've gone through to figure out how we're going to move this forward. So those will be constructed this year. That's the goal. We receive minutes for the next 52 homes, which will most likely start in the spring. We don't want to do it during the winter. We're going to drop that by-American and all that other process before we issue a grant for that. I'll look at those before. I think the last month you approved, that's going to the Board of Finance, which takes about, I think, June, July 17th to go to the Board of Finance. We get approval to move those 50 homes constructed through and the next 50 outreach and design and bid next year. That would be Phase 3. Well, that would be Phase 3, then Phase 4 will be next year. Right. Okay. So what exactly is starting in August? Phase 1 and Phase 2, which is the pilot, the old pilot, which I had left in here before, the old pilot project and the initial Phase 1. Those are now being called, the pilot's being called Phase 1 and the Phase 1 is now out of Phase 2. Just keep it simple with the other A as long as it's available. Right now, we're working on Phase 1, 2, and 3. The first two phases are what's coming up in August. Yeah. And then Phase 3 will be constructed next year. And it will be bidding things for the spring next year. We're designing them. And that's $52,000. Yeah. They had limited the funding to, initially, at $5 million a year, which we thought initially we're going to be able to do about $100,000. It turned out to be $50,000, but we did have more competition this last time. We brought the cost per home down to about $1,000 per home. So we hope to continue that. Go ahead, Brandon. I'm curious if the windows are single pane or triple pane. What's the order of the specs that you're looking at for those? I'm excited to understand. What type of windows is single pane or triple pane? Oh, no. They're double. There's two windows. They're double from noise considerations. Okay. So the double pane? Yeah. Okay. Right. Anything else, Commissions for Larry? Right. No. I'm sorry. That's all right. I didn't say everything, which is the financial update from Marie. So this month, we've got the May profit and loss. We got the May recovery revenue recovery metrics at the June banking balance and the June grant receivable reports. So under the stimulus grant summary, I think that the only thing that's really changed is in the end of June, we did borrow, make our first drive down on the grant anticipation note. Jeff, you had asked about the, we borrow anticipating events. So we had just received a new grant for AIT 143. This is my grant. Web 143 is covering the bill money, the bipartisan and that is doing our, we're doing the renovation in the north concourse where the old TSA used to be. And so this grant is covering that. So we just got that grant. We have been progressing with the project. The project is nearly completion with the installation of the automated checkout points of that grant project will be pretty much done. But we were able to draw under the GAN and we should be able to get reimbursing the FAA shortly. So that's the biggest change that I had to do for the first time under this particular grand anticipation of the 1.4. And that's a classic example of when we would borrow it in the fiscal year, the cash was very important for the completion of the fiscal year and the timing of this. And really that's what we use this game for is that timing. We submit for reimbursement to the FAA. It may take sometimes a week on the good times. And sometimes it could take several months depending on if it's a closed or the interest or we use other funds. That's a great question. Yes. And the interest on any borrowing like that is eligible for us to request for reimbursement under the FAA. Same thing. One of those eligible funds. Our year-to-date revenues through April were just under $25 million. That does include about $1.75 million in federal those stimulus grant funds that we had received. The operating grants. So what I do is I want to compare the operating revenues through April from this year compared to last year. And it was about $3.5 million more this year. So just showing the consistency in the recovery that we had compared to what we started with prior to COVID. And we've kind of gone full circle now. So just clear. The heading says fiscal year-to-date, 6.30. But you're saying the revenues are only through April? Oh, the revenues, you know what? Yes, the revenues are through April. You're right. I think I changed the date on there. That's okay. I just want to be clear. I mean, it would have been surprised if you had all the revenues. I would have been very surprised. It would have been a lot. But it's important because this is not a year end. It is not a year end. So you've got two months still of revenue. Correct. Correct. I still have the months additional notes of revenue. Yeah. Good. Thank you. I think I'm confusing myself. Okay. Anyway, so our expenses were through April or $14.7 million. This is higher. Some of that is because when we went into COVID, we did really scale back on our operating revenues. But also we have the, at this point, we're able to proceed forward with we have some additional things like the operation of the quick turnaround, the QTA is also in there. So we have revenues that are offset our fuel expenses specifically for the QTA. So used by the car rental companies right off the other side of the terminal here. Those are what we paid for fuel, but you'll see as an expense for our fuel. So that's why our fuel looks higher. But we have those revenues we charge back to the car rental companies and they reimburse us 100% for all the fuel they use. So it's a net net. We also began if now if you were to go through the garage, you're going to see all the, we're going to see some areas that we've sectioned off because we've actively working on replacing all of the lights that it's going to be an 18 month project, but it's going to go throughout the garage. So we've actively been working on that. And so we're starting to see some expenses that are coming in through that. The cash that we had, but we're doing, we're doing well with our, even with all of that, we'll still be well under the budget just because I had budgeted for all of the garage project, but it's, it didn't start until the late spring. As cash update as of June 30th had, we had 7.7 million dollars in the international check. We'll say our checking account. We did not owe any money to the city. So that was a very healthy bank balance as we ended the fiscal year. And on that banking statement, you're going to see all of the restricted funds, which include like our CFC funds. Those are the customer facility charge that that is through the car rental company that they charge every time, each day that somebody rents a car. So, and then we have the PFC, which is the passenger facility charge account. So you'll see all those restricted as well as our debt reserves. In the AIP receivable, we did have the, we had been anticipating this and, and it was just in the, it took a while in the work, but the FAA amended and reimbursed our airport improvement programs 118, which is our taxi weight golf. They had already, we've already submitted a closeout path. We had done that. We were just waiting for reimbursement for change order costs that were in excess of the grant, but they have been approved by the FAA were approved and appropriate under the grants. So they did, they did give us that amendment in June and we were able to draw down that money before, before the end of June. And we also, and I mentioned already that we also did receive a grand hand and get assigned for our newest grant, which is 143 for the terminal, the North Terminal Renovation Project in June. That is my report. All right, commissioners, any questions or comments for Marie? I have one thing on that. In fact, that's a great question and Marie's report with respect to improvements. For example, putting anything on hold, like say we're spending $2.5 million dollars in the parking garage with new light, which is going to cut the usage of the electric. Everything we do is to improve it better or something. That's, that's all we do every day, make it better. Well, and even into that point, you know, we're always, I think, safety. We wake up in the morning, we think the word safety, we go to bed and that's been safety. When we're here, all of the projects that we're doing, I mean, even things on the runway, the tax, anything that we're doing is, is on some level is to make sure that everything is up to par to say the lighting is going to make things, even though it's more energy efficient, it's going to be brighter in there. And, you know, we want everybody to be able to feel safe and secure and find their car. You know, if they're getting out of the car and they drop something, they'll find what they dropped though, things like that. Thanks. Marie, I have a question for you today. So on the recovery metrics, it's really interesting because, you know, this was designed to show recovery, but it's also true of trends. Yes. And I've noticed that the CFCs have sort of hopped out and started to roll over a little bit. And just was curious what the story behind that is. Great question. So what we did, let's see, in the fall, so it started in about October, November of 2021, we had discussions with the car rental companies, we were opening up, which we opened up in October, late October of 2021, the new UTA, which is a quick turnaround facility, so fueling, car wash, cleaning that they do each time we have a rental car permit they present and get it ready to turn around and go back out for the next customer. So that facility, when it opened, we had to build that facility. And to do that, we had accumulated our CFC, our customer facility charge, into a bank account. So we had about half the money that was necessary to build the QTA. And the other half we borrowed for, which we did a 10-year lease on. So with COVID heads, and what happened is we had, you know, we didn't have very many people that were flying through our renting cars. So our revenue stream from the quick turnaround, from the CFCs, that revenue stream, well, that took a really, really big hit. And when that did, so our bank account had been, it was sufficient at never end out of money or anything like that, but it was, we knew that there were going to be additional costs with running and operating. A lot of the cost of operating the UTA comes out, we have in the agreement, we're able to use those CFC funds that covers that. We don't pay anything out of air for other revenues to forward this particular facility. It is all, you know, it has to be self-sufficient. And so we worked with the car rental companies and to ensure and do proper due diligence as we were recovering in our passengers and the number of CFC revenues, we raised it from $4 a car to $6 a car. And we did that for one year. So they kind of implemented it when they rolled it out and pushed it through the customers. I could see customers that were coming out. It was a year that each car rental agency did that. So what you're going to see is you're seeing the recovery in numbers, then you're seeing the $6 charge implemented. And so you're going to see it spike, you know, and then kind of leveling off as the customers are becoming, and then you're going to start to see it coming down. We're going to level back out again because now we're back down to $4 per car per. So we had, we had kind of a, we had this great bump in there, but it's not, but you're not going to see that number. You're going to see a platinum event. And when did they switch back to $4? Dependent when they implemented it, but they all implemented it for a year. Okay, so it's a little bit staggered depending on the car rental, but when they did the sale, they went like that and rolled out in their computers, but they all did it for 12 months. Do you know the date of the last one to roll back? It was the spring. Yeah, it was one of those articles, both of them and the others. So now they're all back down to $4. So you're going to see those monthly revenues, then the annual revenues be less. So that's great after the year. Yes, you're going to see each month, you'll be like, oh, it's a little lower than that anyway. But clearly the numbers are right and further than 2019. Revenues and downs as much as the climate rate. Right. Makes sense. And then my other question, we talked about this the last meeting with the passage of the legislation, the debt ceiling, there was the conversation about clawback of unspent herbal funds. And I think if I remember, you were just about to go to a seminar or something like that and sell it. We're here and on our side. And of course, we continue to know that this over here in our side means that it was really unencumbered, ungranted funding that may may be, you know, potentially available for product. Things that there are grants outstanding on that are already been issued. I'm not going to be something for the product. That is what we're hearing. As far as what we're doing with our stimulus money, we fully intend to use the rest of those monies this year. It just, it'll help be built that into our budget, even more with the expectation of the revenue. But we're anticipating this to be the last year that we're using and we'll be fully expediting and using up the funds that we hold. So even though some don't expire until 2020, that's correct. Correct. You know, as a year ago, it won't be like we're able to use them all up in July. So, you know, it's a year goes on and I think that's always a consideration that we have to be mindful and how we, those stimulus funds were absolutely necessary. And I mean, I'm so grateful and appreciative as a person sitting in this finance chair and looking at that, how we were able to make it through the whole COVID issue and how we were able to deal with our significant changes in passengers. So I think we're just being mindful of our spending and we'll continue to monitor that and spend accordingly. But that's our thought right now, which we're thinking we will, we'll extend that throughout the year. All right. Finishers, anything else for Marie? All right. We'll move on to item eight, noise information from Hannah. So we received 13 additional comments last month. And not much else to discuss, if anyone has any questions. You can answer any, but nothing else to report from me on that. Mr. Zaynka, anything for Hannah? Yeah. I'm going to circle in. Oh, go ahead, Brandon. Yeah, I don't have questions on the noise exposure map. Just looking back at the notes from the previous agenda item. It says that the contractor consultant was selected. Just wondering about the timeline for that. I don't know that the website has been updated. BTV Sound has been updated with the timeline just yet. It has not. So yes, the consultant has been selected, which is the Jones Payne group. Well, there's a sub-consultant work in there with a company called HMMH. Both companies helped us revise our 2019 noise exposure map. They're continuing to collect data and schedule our first outreach meeting, which I don't think is scheduled until later, tentatively later this summer. We're going to host and really an outreach meeting. What is a noise exposure map? What the procedures are a meeting of that nature and to present the historical context of previous noise exposure maps? And then we'll continue moving forward. This calendar year though, 2023, is what we call our base year. So we do have to file by the end of 2023 with the FAA, the revised updated noise exposure map with updated operations, of course. So things are going to start moving relatively quickly the rest of this summer and into the fall with public presentations, additional work for the map itself, and then a presentation at the end when the map is completed. Do you anticipate, how much notice do you anticipate being able to give for the public engagement opportunities? Yeah, our hope, whether we're talking about noise exposure map or other projects we're working on specifically related to the land across the street and our walking path system, any of these public meetings, our hope is to give at least three to four weeks notice. Okay, and are you coordinating with the municipalities on additional notifications for those? We absolutely will. Not only notifications, where it's published in languages it's published in, working specifically with Winooski and any municipality that would go out. Okay, so you're following some language access guidelines? That's right. Great, thank you. Looking forward to it. Will there be a committee again? Yeah, we have two committees. We have the technical advisory committee and then we have the regional advisory committee. So most likely we're going to be, not most likely, I don't know why I keep saying that. We will be holding both of those committees. And when will you identify who's on those? We haven't gone through that process yet, but that'll happen prior to the public meeting by the end of the summer. It'll be very similar format. What is this group, in June 26th through June 27th? Was that January, June, fiscal year, calendar year, what? So it's, I should have listed it on there, I have to think about it at another time. We said June 2021 is a week. So let's implement through that or onto the, made that possible for people to provide feedback on our, on QTSound.com on that portal there. So it's inclusive of all comments at that time beginning to present. Yeah, well, that's a great comment. We'll definitely add that. So that's what I think the second question was. These are specifically log complaints through website or, yeah, through the portal that we listed on meeting chat. Well, not entirely. So yes. Well, just as a complaint, like to me, that's any, any complaint that we received from the majority, the majority of those are through the web portal. There were some phone messages or even phone calls to myself or operations that we would then manually log in this portal. So it's all on central. And these are just because these are individual, either household or individuals. It's not, if I call, I'm not, I'm saying one a day, I'm not showing up as. So the heat map referring to that's the, that airport noise comment that says on the bottom. Yeah. So it's current by address, which shows the individual commenter. And then it shows you graphically where it's located on them. Thank you. For example, that red dot is one household 314. So you do get. Oh, I see. One last question for the noise exposure map work. I'm curious if it will use the same methods before or if it will take any lessons learned into account. I'm assuming the noise monitoring equipment will obviously be included in that. To answer your first question. Yes, of course, and any, any updates or lessons learned, not just locally here at PTV, but with our consultants and nationwide, because things do get adjusted, regulations get changed. And the computer software that is used to model this noise exposure will all be taken into consideration, not consideration, but will be followed according to the FAA rules. The noise, what is very important is the noise monitors themselves are not included in this noise exposure map. That is not a method the FAA allows because the noise monitors are an uncontrolled noise data point. So the decibel levels or the average decibel levels coming from those monitors are not what is programmed into the noise modeling software. That's specific from FAA approved methods and scientific data points on each individual aircraft. We use radar information to collect that that air gap information and then that gets input into the noise model themselves. I do anticipate that being a very critical point to communicate to the public. Yes, I agree. All right, thank you. All right, Commissioner Zanthi, else for Hannah? All right, move on to item nine, which is the director's report from Nick. I have a quick report to you. I know last time I reported that Hannah and I were headed on the road. We went, we did go to Milwaukee to visit with eight individual new airlines. Very successful trip, very encouraging trip. And we're, we continue to work with additional partners, including incumbent partners to to look at what the demand is for the airport. Routes are successful and what routes may be increasing, up gauged, different size aircraft or additional routes added to the Burlington Airport. Very successful. This was a really, really great meeting. Again, in person, hands shaking hands with corporate rail, excuse me, corporate network planners from each one of these individual airlines. And I would say very, very successful. A quick update on the TV, not just who you're looking at here, but the 50 or so employees here at the airport. Everybody is working incredibly hard. I'd like Larry and Marie and all of us were saying before we have new pavement, new projects, new maintenance, new facilities requirements, lots of painting happening out on the airfield as well. Here's a look at the new pavement. Dave and his teams are preparing for our annual FAA inspection happening, not next week, but the week after July 18th, I believe. So that's an incredibly important annual inspection that happens, usually over three days with an FAA inspector coming on site for that entire time. Every paint, every light, every centimeter of paint essentially is inspected to make sure it's in compliance. I'm very confident in Dave and the entire team. It looks really good out on that airfield and I'm expecting a really, really great inspection. A major construction is starting to, it was all in Larry's report, the South apron, which is closest to the new beta manufacturing facility. That project is kicking off later this month. Our taxiway alpha, which is the taxiway immediately adjacent to terminal ramp. Again, another highly complex and highly coordinated project with our airline partners that starts July 24th. So prior to our next meeting, we're going to see a lot of construction happening out on that airfield, which is great. We also celebrated our employees. We had a night out at the Lake Monsters team. We brought our employees with their families out and had a great trip last Friday, which was fantastic. Lily did one of the kiddos from one of our families. Yeah, it was fantastic. With a visit from champ himself. I did hear some action items today, both in public comment and in the conversation here. There is a resolution currently circulating through the Burlington City Council, mostly related to action items to the Vermont Air National Guard. I don't necessarily support the entirety of this resolution. However, again, it's intended towards the Air National Guard, providing really there's two there for clauses associated with only having a simulated training mission at the Vermont Air National Guard, not a flying mission, which I do not support. There are other there is another there for clause though that asks the Vermont Air National Guard to share flight information and fuel information, which I can support and would align with our sustainability reporting that we do, which is great. Is that the resolution that the it is that was referred to a couple of times? Okay, but that was talking about, well, from that, I understood, I thought they were saying the resolution was no more development here and private. Is that I'm not aware of a resolution of that nature? That's just the additional additional issues and these are being presented to the Transportation Utility and Energy Committee, a subcommittee of the Burlington City Council. That resolution was passed by the two and presented to the full city council. I believe later that's fine. Will you have me sure the Commission gets a copy of that? I can't. I just be curious to look. I can't. The additional items that you're referring to are some of the things that were read tonight, but also I think more importantly is a request by the two and I'm also going to bring our legal folks into the commission as well to help answer any questions of what exactly is our regulations, our procedures, what are we allowed to do? What can we not be allowed to do? And that will be our attorneys from our Washington, D.C., third party attorney that helps us with these types of issues, not just with us, but around the country, many, many different airports. They're preparing a presentation to the Commission as well as Tukin and to City Council if needed. And that is the item related to either not allowing certain aircraft, which we are not allowed to do, or even putting taxes or fees or carbon goals or, excuse me, emissions goals for each aircraft in that type of scenario. So those, excuse me, our attorney's office will come in and present those types of legal standpoints and guidance. I'm going to bring them in on to the August 2nd, I think it's August 2nd, that it'll also be on most likely the next transportation committee. And I'll offer that committee if you want to join that or digitally join or at least watch the video. Thank you. That is all I have for you. Jacob, what was that next? Oh, yes. Oh, yeah, that's an action item. Oh, okay. All right, Mr. Sagan. Thank you. Nick, I was wondering, early on, you mentioned the resolution on the international guards and that you supported the information in terms of what's going on and some of the aspects in terms of the chemicals or whatever. But you said that you did not support the other part of that, which was changing the way that you said it makes sense, whether it was sort of a landing thing or just a simulation thing. I'm not using the words that you used, but you said it much better. I was wondering if you're comfortable explaining why you support that. Sure. So there's very specific criteria on the evaluation of what fees are associated with the Vermont Air National Guard and what fees may be associated with us to the Vermont Air National Guard. We have a joint use agreement that goes through this fee structure of what is the cost of our joint use facilities that the Air Guard uses? What does that cost us? What does it cost the Air National Guard to provide the sole aircraft fire and rescue services at this airport? It costs us much less to operate the ratio of military operations specific to our runway, which is essentially the joint use infrastructure that they use. It costs approximately $4 million a year in salaries alone for the operation of the firefighting station, the only station at this airport. Without a flying mission and without that joint use calculation in that partnership, that calculation is much different and would look very different on the associated costs to the airport within our own operating budget to provide those firefighting services. I also supported the Air National Guard for the flying mission of the Air National Guard and the support that they provide not just on the firefighting services but beyond. So I think that's it. But the financial piece specific to our budget is the critical component to us in them providing well over the cost of the joint use services providing that service. So if we didn't have if we reached that contract then we would need to get fire rescue equipment, we would need to train people, we would need to have the water and chemicals needed in order to provide that feature. That is a higher probability without a flying mission not just the $4 million a year in the salaries but the cost of the infrastructure would be on us. If there was no firefighting services provided by the Air National Guard that's also a major consideration, obviously the worst case scenario, the $20 million of the infrastructure, $4 million in capital equipment associated with their trucks and their services in the training associated with it. I just mentioned our what we call our part 139 or 14c of our part 139 annual inspection. Today our annual inspection is the collaboration of the Air National Guard and the FAA through us to provide the checklists to go through that inspection. Without the Air National Guard that inspection would take a day or two to go through training records and equipment making sure they have proper equipment is stationed. Thank you. So I first for those I don't know I want to introduce myself I'm Chibis first meeting welcome normally I would have had an opportunity to introduce myself but we were all running late. I did serve for 10 years on the city council for years so some of this is a little bit of deja vu. I've had the F-35 you know one of my first meetings was a discussion a very heated discussion that lasts until three in the morning on the F-35 and that was not the first so this is in my assessment at least the third incarnation. I'm a little I appreciate through public comment another you know I know I have my role of what this commission does based on my read of the charter and my understanding a lot of what is being asked from my perspective this beyond the purview of a non-policy making body so I you know I'm certainly willing to listen to public comment and discussion around the table but I don't see any of us with this commission is having any you know if the council wants to ask our permission or what we think about certain policy great happy to weigh in on that but you know beyond that I think much to the disappointment of many people who come to these meetings and expect something and asking for us to be leaders at least from my read of our the charter that is not within the authority of this body and I would welcome I'm a little close and also on the resolution having served I'm always literally about you know until the meeting actually starts and even until it's on the floor that's not necessarily the resolution that's going that's great so I don't waste that much time forming opinions on something that I don't know what discussions are going on and whether that will look like I'm also a little fuzzy on some of the other you know the expansion or it's not clear to me whether anything has been asked of this body or if it's just public commenters who sort of looking so I mean it's something we can maybe serve up on after I'm just not sure what to is asking or not but I'm looking forward to this having said that and look forward to working with you all so thank you to get that and I'm up at the first person your your first meeting supposed to bring the donuts I did not there's usually that hazel or hazel pasta I didn't get that no no that was my fault for not making introductions I started the night I used to study the meeting all right commissioners any else for Nick all right so we move on to item 10 which is commission events and so just just over there I messed up your meeting that's okay that's okay so that's where we normally bring up things you know for you know I I highly encourage those to be submitted in advance so that the public know what topics are going to be spoken about in the section but I never want to prohibit a commissioner from bringing anything up so there was nothing submitted in advance but commissioners do you have anything that you'd like to bring up with this I would just like to ask I certainly the airport the area over the residents according to the airport are really interested in the conversations about the park and and so as soon as you think it would be helpful for the commission to hear that I think it would be good good to have that as an agenda item so the public can also wait in because they're very very concerned about that and I don't think the answers because you're you're locating that or just helping and yeah yeah so absolutely so the more transparent we can be I think the better in terms of you know people say well that was a decision made you know privately and um and now you're just bringing us the they're complete and they don't like that I mean most people don't know you know the kids or anyone yeah the great part is there's no decisions that have been made yeah besides that we want to invest in that that area with the community a park like a multi-use bike path if you will that connects to existing south burlington bike parking systems timing is great too because of the updated city plan that's right so we're working with city staff in south burlington to to talk about those times that they go to the not just the public hearing and public process within the city planning process and then we can also join with that that process and hold public meetings in a lot of presentation to the commission so that's just like it's a it's ready perfect anything else commissioners right move on to item 11 which is followed by items so 11.1 cute permits for taxi drivers thank you man yeah no further action from me right now I know there's a request still ending from me to you to raise the cute permit quantity I'm not ready to do that right now in the meantime as I discussed the past we've updated signage presentation of where to actually operations are and we're also working with the vehicle for a higher order of the city of Burlington um to continue to work with that board as well as taxi drivers on that you want to make sure it's very clear what is available here so no no further action on me for that okay but we'll keep it on the list yes all right and then item 11.2 a briefing on the north terminal building uh so super excited to get this briefing to you both on financial planning and a total presentation of what this new building will look like that is scheduled for august 2nd with our engineers and architects so you can see 3d models and general concepts of what we're moving forward with we're only 30% designed on this right now we are going out to bid uh probably in two to three weeks on a construction manager at risk procurement process so there is significant time to to look at the design and and to to go back and forth on what and why where we're designing this project it will go with the financial basis project you know there's no surprises on price we get there and right that's that's the biggest reason why we're going out for a CMAR infrastructure manager at risk so we can bring in that contractor early get them as part of the design team to get a project um designed and priced importantly what we can just a just a comment kind of relative to some of the comments made about the airport expanding I must I mean I don't know if if building the um well one the the hotel and then um finishing the north end is is considered expansion right you know I don't know what their definition is but right you know I think that's a part of our conversation or understanding and appreciation um particularly you know when you said you've been looking at additional airlines and if all of them want to come here um is there some point when we need another runway or is that I mean I'm looking at the map and I'm looking I wonder where a second runway could go so we don't know that much about it so so is that China's the tipping point or where you make decisions about how big you think they am sure so the terminal like Larry is saying it really is a replacement so we're removing four Jeff bridges yes I mean adding um but it is more short footage it is a different building it is uh changing the experience of our passengers safety and efficiency it also enables larger planes right it enables larger planes more efficient planes uh it also adds elements of it also adds levels of electrical uses versus gpu or auxiliary power burning fuel to run their auxiliary systems or computer systems we want them to use the electricity uh off of this building uh so along with geothermal and different ways to heat and cool the buildings which right now we're not using we're using natural gas and uh those things so we're moving away from them we very similar to the terminal building in the city needs of our terminal building we evaluated that during our master planning process under very strict FA guidelines rules um I mean really guidelines on what a building should be based on based on the number of passengers we do the same thing for all what is our capacity constraint of using our runway if we doubled in the number of operations and our runway and our capacity here does not require an additional runway even if our operations expanded dramatically uh there are other methods and we do have two runways there's other methods and other um landing uh procedures that can be used for that type of capacity we're not even close to that and that's all laid out really nicely in our master plan of what we need out in the airfield to the terminal and beyond um the you're right the and we I think we've talked about this at this this um meeting before the word expansion and uh you know it's yeah it can be perceived very differently and uh we are we are out rowing for sure there are more operations and we're we have a major demand for those operations we have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people using this airport outbound only uh almost 1.5 million people a year flying in and out that doesn't count account for all the passengers or excuse me all the people that are not actually flying visiting or or meeting or greeting or sending a loved one so the the capacity of this building uh all takes that all into account in like Larry was saying the bottom line when we look at this terminal building and project next specifically when we look at that building we do have constraints on what size aircraft and the efficiency that they come in but more importantly we have safety constraints out there on our terminal um and we have safety proximity constraints with distinct TWA and runway infrastructure that we need we need to change um and that gets brought up during our 139 inspection and I'm sure it will be brought up again this year so we do need to to keep those into consideration like Larry said it's better to make things better to make things more efficient well yeah it just seems like I guess the solution they see is you just don't fly as a society or not very much right which is a different discussion than anything this commission can determine that's right I think it's very important like the email I read last commission meeting though this is something we cannot do we cannot disallow any type server or any type of aircraft to otherwise we're sacrificing our grants in perpetuity in our future grants moving forward so they're and this is what our legal team that come in that's right that's the follow-up by 11.2 hearing on that topic move to Aydin DeVol which is adjourned do you hear a motion to adjourn looks like helping thank you thank you for any discussion all those who have ever seen it oh brandy oh yep okay thank you thank you brandy